Editorial: The Gay Pride flap raises some red flags too

Published Sunday, June 12, 2005

This week Gay Pride flags fly over the historic entrance to the Nation’s Oldest City.

The response from readers has been both swift and predictable here at the newspaper. Some celebrate it as a great victory for diversity. Some believe the old bridge will surely fall into Matanzas Bay under the sheer weight of the blasphemy waving in the winds. Some don’t think all that much about it one way or another. We suspect that group is by far the largest, though not the loudest.

U.S. District Judge Henry Lee Adams, whose ruling forced the city to fly the flags, is getting the brunt of the blame (courts ruling roughshod over governments and citizens). But in truth, the city left him no choice. St. Augustine has played loose with rules and criteria for allowing the flying of flags. Commissioners have said that the flags must commemorate an event of historic significance, but has fudged freely in that respect in the past. The Broward Yacht Company’s occasional reunions here come immediately to mind. Judge Adams merely pointed out the city’s fickle standards and flexible enforcement; and, basically, called its bluff.

So while we may understand the decision, we do not agree with it. By the same token we would not agree that flags should fly on the bridge for “White Pride” or “Telemarketer Pride” observances. Nor do we agree with Judge Adams’ assertion that the Gay Pride group would “suffer irreparable harm and loss” by being prevented from flying the flag. They can exercise their rights — and do — each year with marches and protests.

What really happened is that St. Augustine is feeling another spasm of growing pains, evolving from a small city mindset into big city reality. It can’t control its destiny to the extent it has in the past. The state has a say, the Feds have a say and the courts have a say as well in this regulatory mélange we call government.

What the court ruling has done is give the city two options as we see it. Either allow everyone to use the bridge in this manner, or no one; including “government-bodies” as some commissioners are suggesting.

Is Menedez Day a government body? How about the upcoming 500th anniversary of Ponce de Leon’s founding of Florida? Neither are “government” entities. Perhaps commissioners mean “government-sponsored” entities. They could then theoretically pass resolutions to “sponsor” art festivals or historic celebrations. But they would still be defining these events as appropriate or not, and we’d likely be right back where we are today.

Perhaps city commissioners can write a new ordinance that would give them the power to deny inappropriate uses of flags on the bridge; Nazis, the Klan or the telephone sales crews. But it still means that five individuals would be selectively disallowing certain groups the right that others have — and that’s a slippery slope legally speaking (The county, however, was able to define the legal parameters of a person’s posterior not so long ago … so there is some hope).

The flying of the Gay Pride flags is a tempest in a teapot. Certainly the fabric of our community is weaved tightly enough to weather the storm of “those people” using “our bridge” to celebrate an “unnatural” cause.

Having said that, there should be a difference in this country between being tolerant of alternative lifestyles — and being forced by the courts to, in essence, endorse them in this most public manner.